Coal is a dirty fuel, but what we don't need is replacing one bad fuel with another. Do we really want to leave our children and grandchildren a nuclear waste legacy? Do we really want to run the risk of environmental contamination that lasts generations? Do we really want our neighbours to think we might be pursuing nuclear weapons? Do we really want to risk nuclear waste falling into the wrong hands? Remember, this is something that once we commit to will be with us for generations. Do we really want to ruin our reputation as a nation that values the environment in a way that is different to the rest of the world? Don't our politicians understand that we should be ridding the world of these poisonous materials. We should be setting an example to the rest of the world that we don't have to go their way. We can be different here. Australia is perfectly poised to embrace renewables in a way that might not happen again if we choose to go nuclear. This is an opportunity that would be letting our future generations down if we miss it. Let it be known to John Howard that he isn't always going to get his way.

"Let it be known to John Howard that he isn't always going to get his way."
Wish you well with that one Crusader. The Howard led Coalition is a juggernaut out of control while he's got power of the Senate. He's not interested in future generations or the mess they'll inherit. His only interest is in keeping power after the next Federal elections so he can continue his stomach churning pandering to big business. In the case of nuclear enegry, it's the mining industry that he's pandering to. I'm all for offsetting the effects of the coal industry by more use of renewables, better use of energy etc, but the sorry fact is that such things are not always in the best interests of big business. It won't stop until humanity has been driven to the edge of the abyss and toppled over the side.

Far from cutting back coal use is increasing on the sly; in Australia there is Basslink supplanting hydro, in the UK and Germany coal fired electricity is easing concerns over Russian gas imports, in China coal-to-liquids is proposed on a massive scale, Ireland is importing Polish coal, the US is using coal to distil ethanol and the list goes on. If climate scientists are right coal use should be cut by half within a decade. Obviously the first step is to impose carbon taxes or CO2 caps. Then see what works; alas I am near certain clean coal will never be viable on a large scale with or without incentives. Beattie & co. are playing to their mining constituency by invoking eternal salvation via clean coal. If they are so confident it will work they should lock in some contracts now. Meanwhile farmers and water users are paying the price for coal's pollute-for-free status.

To say that so-called clean coal is the equivalent of "healthy cigarettes" is a debating-type red-herring which trivialises an important debate. Let's concentrate on what I think is the topic here: "To only achieve a stabilisation by 2025 would lead to a climate change induced nightmare." I take it, this means stabilisation of Australia's coal use (or greenhouse gas emissions) or those of the world. Anyway, the principle is the same. No-one knows - you, me or anyone - whether the world will be warmer or cooler than now in 2025. IPCC/CSIRO say that there will be just more and more warming - with NO cold periods. Sceptics like me say the next Little Ice Age cold period will be obvious by 2025. Until the future unfolds, we owe it to humanity to plan for either warming or cooling in the next quarter-century. Even if for the best of all possible motives, blind dogmatism is not good enough.

Come on people, let's stop playing around with semantics. We all have to admit that we are living in a fool's paradise where we are using energy and other material resources like it is going out of fashion. Our standard of living is much higher than we can afford and in the comparative short term, civilization as we presently know it will undoubtedly come to a grinding halt.

As well as developing all sorts of renewable energy sources - wind, solar, tidal and including gethermal and nuclear, we also need to be doing something to drastically reduce the number of people living on the planet. Let's get pragmatic about it. We cannot sustain the present population, let alone any increase. If we don't do something about it, then nature will have the final say.

“We are living in a fool's paradise”, No, it is a Looters Utopia; there are some who keep the useless Idiot parasites amerced in Ill begotten wealth, the problem is the over abundance of depraved Ideological irrelevant Looter Proletariat W.O.F.T.A.M.S and Useless idiots sucking the life blood out of the host .

Remove the Parasites, and the economic foundations and principled ethical realization will return- maintain the Looter Idealism, and we loose everything.

It goes back to Value of effort: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/22/

Once you devalue effort-and Embolden Ineptitude and encourage mediocrity instead of developing the best some have to offer- then as we look out side the window now, we are doomed. Some what understated.

I would rather a nuclear reactor in my back yard as it is much safer than the useless idiots Immigration policy. And besides, the way the world is and The Civilizations decline, living in caves and nuclear power plants seem to be an incompatible conundrum.

Soon there will be nobody left to realize what the structure was.

But to have both is Suicidal. What say you?

I would love it if some other posters could answer a few questions on this subject.

1. Why is it important that we should not export coal, when other countries can purchase it freely from third world sources? How does that help us?

2. Considering that China has already announced that they will not be reducing emissions ( they have more important priorities), what difference will it make if we do? Remember that we only generate 1% of world gases, and the whole southern hemisphere only produces 4%.

3. Sure, we can stop all these industries, and we, with the rest of the world will sink into a depression that will make the thirties look like a picnic. The only way we know how to run an economy is with constant growth.

4. I was happy to see VK3AUU mentioning the subject of population. Relax, VK3AUU, the four horsemen are already out of the stable, and are happily roaming around africa and the middle east.

(p.s. For those with no knowledge of the bible, the four horsemen of the apocalypse are WAR, FAMINE, PESTILENCE and DEATH.)

5. Those who oppose fission reactors should realise they are only a short term option (ca 50 years). The only long term option is fusion power stations. Renewable energy is too intermittent to be feasible on a large scale until we develop cheap ways to store electricity. We have been trying to do this unsuccessfully for over a hundred years.

Plerdsus ; That is a sacrilege; mentioning Fission Reactors in this place, it is akin to mentioning chainsaw and Trees, It would be enough to have you locked up for; “Thought Murder”
I dare not mention my reactor, with the fear of being lynched by the proletariat lobotomized.

Advancements in Plasma fusion reactors are coming along well , not that there would be too many people here would have a clue what we were talking about;
But for those that have some interest and wish to know, will find this article very explanatory; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/24/

And what the hell, I will throw in some notes on Quantam Quarks as well; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/85/

Epistemology is great, I just wish some people make a greater effort in finding out about Science advancements.
After all, there is no future in being a Useless Idiot

All, your references to current plasma technology are interesting. I must admit that I was rather sceptical of what the Russians were claiming when they first went public a couple of decades ago. My knowledge of physics is fairly elementary as I last studied the subject at a tertiary level back in about 1955 or so. At least I learned enough to be able to understand some of the mechanisms involved.
It does seem that our fearless leader needs to be bought up to speed with the current state of the art regarding plasma research. However, time is now the essense of the contract with regard to developing practical systems capable of producing 500 to 1000 Megawatts. I wonder if you have a handle on what sort of power levels are currently being realised, or do I have to go through all the references - I am getting lazy as I am getting older.

Well, I overcame my lethargy and read some of the more promising references you gave on fusion. You will have to pardon my blasphemy, but it looks like fission will be the dominant power generator for some time in the future. I think we need to be realistic about it.

I don't quite understand why more research isn't being done with geothermal power generation. After all, the rock temperature down the bottom of the mine at Mount Isa is around 120 degrees F, (I've been there) at a depth of around 5000 feet, so it probably isn't beyond the bounds of possibility to go to whatever times that depth to get the required temperature to generate steam. It would be much easier in volcanic areas. As well as that, the sun does shine a goodly number of hours every day in most parts of the country, so we only need other power sources for the rest of the day.

Incidentally, does anyone have practical design for a Sterling cycle engine that I could couple to a 3.8 metre diameter parabolic reflector.

If we don't burn the coal, it will sit as a honeypot to every major nation with declining energy supplies (thats all of them) and every amoral populist politican in Oz (thats most of them). Energy security is a trigger issue for US & NATO military action, be amazing if wasn't so for China too. Better we burn it as clean (and probably expensive) as possible than have the coal sit there attracting chancers.

Cost is the main impediment to cleaner coal, there are no lack of emissions scrubbing and C re-use technologies. Personally i like algal cake http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC133p34.pdf but choosing tech's is a job for a properly regulated market. Emissions trading WILL NOT speed us towards this end as the EU's corporately-corrupt fiasco is showing, an overarching 'contraction and convergence' protocol is the best starting place followed by direct taxation of emissions. Leaving coal in the ground is, unfortunately, highly unlikely.

Thanks: VK3AUU , I glad you enjoyed finding out more;
One of Australians biggest problems is the absolute distance the Power grid has to extend, thus the reason we have 240 volts;
So the actual consumption of Electricity is a lesser variant to the ratio of power production; accurate figure escape me for the moment,
A short term solution would be if Household could produce an element of electricity and bank it into the National grid, as it would assist the levels of production, and the Loss within the system, can be minimized by extremely small addition- every little bit helps.

NASA has some excellent solar collectors available, which are glass mirror reflector, half spherical spintronic; it is used on the Orbiting space station, and obviously not as cumbersome as the Panel system. I will have to re track that info; I actually thought it would be front page new, I was wrong.

People have a need now to learn about these things, as the Governing system here and probably elsewhere is about to collapse. And besides it is always advisable to maintain a level of Independence from the state, People should control and maintain their own destiny. Every little bit helps. Bureaucrats will only take your money; and then pretend to be doing you a favor.

In terms of practicalities. 75 per cent of power generation in Australia comes from coal (mainly black coal). The cheap cost of coal-fired electricity has supported power intensive industries which have driven our economy and the quality of life you enjoy. Right or wrong, that's where we are.

A fast fix that you talk about "turn off coal-fire power gen now" is impossible and laughable, the status quo is too entrenched, too structurally fundamental to not play a part in the transition to zero emissions. Like it or not - the transition will not be the economic disaster that would result if we turned off our power stations tomorrow.

-Clean coal etc as you have described above is a short term and transitional technology, but valid
-Nuclear is a zero/close to zero (if you take account of the mining) emissions technology that can supply baseload electricity
-Gas-fired power generation results in carbon dioxide emissions also (albeit less than coal-fired)
-renewable generation - wind/solar/geothermal are years and years away from being technically and economically feasible, and will not for, many many years be substantial enough to provide BASELOAD power

In addition, I can't understand why people can't stomach nuclear yet on the other hand are passionate about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I can't understand why people are against reducing emissions from coal fired technology as part of a strategy to reduce overall emissions ie something is better than nothing, yet apply the double standard that some renewables are better than nothing.

Could someone discuss the merits of anthracite and the role it plays in Australia's coal resources.

Picture this - recently a coal producing NSW town (names aren't important)hosted a tourist industry gathering where one of the theme displays was a pile of large chunks of very black local coal. Tourist gathering over, what do the hosts do with the coal chunks? Deposit it in the garbage bin for local dump collection. Now that may have been a practical solution to an immediate problem or it may have been a real dilemma for someone facing the very real issue of global warming and the very big part of coal in the 21st century's apocalypse. I just don't believe our political institutions are capable of dealing with this issue either. Clean coal is an oxymoron. X-Srata spent just $250 000 perannum on coal sequestration studies in 2004-5. Sure we've upped this to some $350 million in ensuing years through Howard's very late reality check. But my gut feeling is it aint going to go anywhere. Individual carbon ration cards for everyone on the globe over 15 tomorrow - blow your monthly allowance too soon and you're out n the cold til next month buddy. get used to it.

Yes VK3
There is no silver bullet in this subject.
To stop burning coal, just like that is impossible.

Power stations can be anywhere if the transmission voltage is high enough.
Hence the Bass Straight Mega volt DC line.
I agree that fusion is probably 50 years away.
So we have a choice Nuclear, Coal and try and hide the CO2 underground,
Geothermal and the intermittant renewables.
Its Hobson's choice really.

Nuclear is expensive and takes a lot of time, but it works.
The way you do it is stop export of yellow cake.
Build an enrichment plant and lease not sell the fuel rods.
No new ones unless the used ones returned.
Bury them in Central Australia.

Coal sequestration works, it is being used to increase oil output
from oil wells by pumping it underground into the space the oil came from.

Geothermal; Some systems become unworkable in a very short time
as the rocks get cooled. Seems OK in ZL, err New Zealand.

Intermittants; Full of problems, Solar expensive and shortage of materials.
Windfarms have average of 25% of rated output. So expensive.
Causes instability in grid network.

So, everyone raves on about coal but they have no answers.
They wont have the only viable alternative, so whats their suggestion ?

According to plerdus, the four horsemen of the apocalypse are WAR, FAMINE, PESTILENCE and DEATH.

The fourth horseman of the apocalypse is PLAGUE - they all are aspects of death...

But let's not get carried away by the topic of population. Climate change is a global phenomenon (like population growth) and needs a global solution. To have any credibility in urging the rest of the world to move away from coal, Australia needs to set an example.

Australia generates (pun intended) a large part of its national income from coal. If we can show that it is economically feasible to make big cuts in coal extraction that will be much more effective in global politics than blathering on about the fantasy of "new Kyoto"s or how we can't cut production because others will fill the gap.

hey imagine if they could charge for solar and wind,what a pay off,if only someone could help only way they would listen.
Can someone please tell me what a conflict of interest is so not sure?see so much all the time is it who you are not what you do?

so full on, never get there, good to have your views but if really want to change the world make it simple stupid,even if have the depth need the character.
So sad to see so many smart people let us all down, but way of this world all so busy hey.
Would be nice to see a smart social conciliation so Australia showed the world the true meaning of freedom and happiness for all.
Your only as good as the worst person here?